Thursday, January 26, 2017

Mexico's president on Thursday scrapped a planned summit with Donald Trump in the face of insistent tweets from the U.S. president demanding Mexico pay for a border wall, a spat that threatens Mexican efforts to salvage trade ties. Taking a page out of Trump's playbook, President Enrique Pena Nieto fired the salvo on Twitter, after Trump's call for Mexico to foot the bill for his planned wall prompted a groundswell of calls in Mexico for next week's meeting to be called off.

Trump said in a Twitter message earlier on Thursday that his Mexican counterpart should cancel his scheduled visit to Washington if Mexico refuses to pay for the wall that he has ordered constructed along the border. Trump views the wall, a major part of his election campaign, as part of a package of measures to curb illegal immigration.

Trump, who took office last Friday, signed an executive order for construction of the wall on Wednesday, the same day that Mexico's foreign minister held talks with Trump aides in the White House aimed at healing ties.

I won't try to guess at the President's objectives, but what are the odds that this move on Mexico's part wasn't anticipated and doesn't play right into the God-Emperor's hands? Trump is adroit at setting up the heads-I-win, tails-you-lose play; merely showing up meant Mexico had to commit to funding the wall. If things continue on this track, Trump may well run Mexico out of NAFTA without having to talk Congress into doing anything or even having to issue an executive order.

At least three senior U.S. diplomats at the State Department have left their posts, State Department officials told Reuters on Thursday. It was not immediately clear whether their departure was part of the normal transition process when a new administration starts or whether it was a coordinated walkout by diplomats who had served in Democrat Barack Obama’s administration.

Who cares why they left? The important thing is that they won't be in place to play their usual whispering games.

133 Comments:

I believe that the Mexican government REALLY DOES WANT the Trump Wall? They just can't PUBLICLY support it, in much the same way that Arab governments want the US to stay in the Middle East, even while PUBLICLY condemning us, to pacify their populace. Here is history on the Great Wall of Trump:NEW YORK – The legislation President-elect Donald Trump will need to build the promised wall along the U.S. southern border with Mexico was passed in 2006 and remains on the books, even though it was never built.The Trump administration will only need fund the 2006 act to finally build a double-layer secure wall along the border with Mexico as Congress originally intended 10 years ago.On Oct. 26, 2006, President George W. Bush signed the Secure Fence Act of 2006 saying: “This bill will help protect the American people. This bill will make our borders more secure. It is an important step toward immigration reform.Democrats in Congress have blocked funding, arguing the barrier is too costly and a step away from their stated goal of “comprehensive immigration reform,” a code-phrase for proposed legislation that typically includes de facto amnesty for the millions of illegal immigrants already in the United States.The bill was introduced into the House of Representatives (H.R. 6061) on Sep. 13, 2006, by Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y. The bill received overwhelming support, passing the House by a vote of 283-138 on Sept. 14, 2006, and passing the Senate by 80-19 on Sept. 29, 2006.The Secure Fence Act of 2006 called for building some 700 miles of double-fence construction along the Mexican border, complete with vehicle barriers, checkpoints and lighting. Congress approved $1.2 billion in a separate homeland security spending bill to build the fence.In 2006, as George W. Bush was pushing the Security and Prosperity Partnership with Mexico as a result of a tripartite summit with Mexico and Canada in Waco, Texas, the previous year, those pushing for secure borders had reason to believe the Secure Fence Act would go a long way toward solving the problem of unchecked illegal immigration from Mexico.Where’s the Fence?However, as WND reported in 2007 then Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, R-Texas, submitted an amendment to the Department of Homeland Security 2008 budget that would effectively gut the Secure Fence Act.The Hutchison amendment read, in part, “nothing in this paragraph shall require the Secretary of Homeland Security to install fencing, physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors in a particular location along an international border of the United States, if the Secretary determines that the use or placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain operational control over the international border at such location.”By slipping the amendment into the 2008 DHS funding bill, Hutchison gave DHS total discretion to build a fence or to not build a fence in any particular location.Hutchinson knew that if then-Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff had discretion on whether or not to build the fence, the Bush administration could always insist that negotiations at the local level along the border, including with Mexico, had resulted in solutions to border security – including cameras, drones, sensors and other technological surveillance measures – that would make the barrier unnecessary.On Nov. 6, 2007, a DHS fact sheet documented that only 76 miles of a “pedestrian fence” had been built along the Mexican border, making it clear no double-layer barrier had been built.On Jan. 25, 2008, then-Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., the author of the double-layer fence provisions of the Secure Fence Act of 2008, complained that only five miles of the 75-mile “pedestrian fence” then built was actually double-layer, as specified in the original legislation.

Longtime State Dept functionary P. Kennedy was one of Clinton's fixers in her email/server debacle. He was also the one who decided to reduce security in Benghazi, the even worse Clinton debacle. He let Abedin become a full time "contractor" to the state department while holding down three other full time jobs.

But he wanted to stay on the job. Because he was so good at it, I guess.

I will for kicks. As you said it is a "Heads I win/Tails you lose" scenario. If they show up they are paying for the wall. If they don't show up it gives Trump ability to show they won't cooperate and cover to pull out of NAFTA and put trade barriers on Mexico which has a $60 billion trade deficit with US. Mexico is already on the edge of revolt, through impact of trade war with US and the Mexican government will be in serious trouble.

This way Nieto will come on his knees to kiss the ring and Mexico will be the warning shot to the rest of the world. Trump has said he wants to pull out of multinational trade deals and conduct trade relations one on one. What better way to get out of NAFTA, get the wall paid for, and let everyone know there is a new sheriff in town. There is a reason all these companies are going out of there way to follow the Trumptrain.

BTW, that article posted above on lack of progress towards the fence neglected to mention that Boeing and its subcontractors sucked down $1B - that's B for billion - for a "virtual fence" that never worked and could not be made to work.

In fact, I think there's a strong argument that the intended purpose of spending that $1B that way was to provide an appearance of "progress" while in fact delaying any progress at all for as long as possible in order to kill the project from neglect (or until Dems got into the White House). And it worked! The "virtual fence" bought 'em 6 years.

As others have noted, Trump's actions are revealing just how inept were republicans across the board.

People are now aware of what's possible, and when Ryan, McStain, et.al. start to mewl about changes, their constituents will have a new metric by which to judge. Two years is a long way away, and a market dislocation would be a wild card, but voters may look past incumbency and see these spineless, appeasement-conditioned cucks for who they really are. If so, it'll be about time.

The local Wal-Mart is hiring cart wranglers. I mention it in case those three slack-ass bastards from the State Department decide they might want to try honest work for a change. It beats suicide by nail gun.

Don't let Aliens here (incl. legal) send cash across the border using Western Union, or put the 50% tax, but let them take it with them personally as cash and not come back (sans visa) once the wall is up.

Pena Nieto shows signs of being another pretty face, but not all that smart. Trying to out-Tweet Trump, then reneging on a state visit shows short-term thinking, maybe petulance. Too short for the ride, perhaps?

The Mexican elite families that run that country via cronyism know full well how the US can make average Mexicans pay for the wall. They can't admit that in public, though, because remittances bring as much money into Mexico as oil production does.

Too bad for them. They need to run their country a bit better, and stop relying on El Norte as the pressure relief valve.

A majority of Canucks in the Western provinces are willing to do business with the new White House. Those provinces tend to be more American and they like Trump. Trudeau is doing town hall meetings across Canada: A lukewarm reception in Saskatchewan. Boy Wonder is having a feud with the province's premier over the carbon tax. Trudeau was booed when he appeared in Calgary, Alberta the other night.Many Albertans would like to chuck Canada all together and become a 51st state. Many here on the Canadian Plains are saying that Trump has done more for Canada (support of pipelines) in a week than "Mr. Selfie" Trudeau has done for the country in over a year that he's been PM.

I have to say that in a lifetime of surprises in the political arena what with assassinations, resignations, articles of impeachment and a senate trial, BJs in the oval office and the girlfriends of mafia dons paying clandestine calls on Camelot not to mention watching a sitting president openly work to undermine and weaken the nation at home and abroad that I would never live to see anyone enter the office and do what he said he would do while campaigning or show any signs of real leadership. Of course in recent campaigns it has been promises of delivering nothing beyond tax-payer funded goodies for the downtrodden mixed with meaningless platitudes about "values", "equality" and "fairness" said horse manure being shoveled out liberally by the champions of both parties.

My president, Donald J. Trump, a man I thought of some 15 months ago as an unserious dilettante dabbling in politics to break the ennui inherent in the life of the super rich, has turned out to be very possibly the best man to hold the office, certainly in my lifetime, possibly since our first and greatest president. Some of the goofiness early on was no doubt real but President Trump shows a talent for learning quickly from his mistakes and a real genius at reducing his enemies to babbling, blustering buffoons. But the main thing is it looks like he really is keeping his word. I never thought I would live to see any president actually keep his word.

I find myself having to resist the temptation to fall into blathering hero worship. The man hasn't been in office for a week. But the energy, determination, courage and just plain integrity of the man is extraordinary. May God watch over him and his family and colleagues in the coming months.

Actually, I'm starting to think Spicer is a very benevolent gift from the God-Emperor to his MSM anklebiters. If they didn't have poo to chase, they'd have to try and grapple with all of what he is doing and I think their heads might explode

The Gorebots at the EPA are committing Seppuku by "anonymously" tweeting their hissy fit against Trump's ban on the EPA. All Trump can get a quick report from Gen. Flynn as to who those people are and fire their asses. Or better yet, gut the EPA just like the State dept.

And it's not like Trump didn't give Mexico loads of negotiating room. He made it very clear that while we will start paying for the wall, eventually, one way or another, 'and the deal may be very complex', Mexico will pay for it.

There's all kinds of ways we could get paid by Mexico very rationally in all kinds of deals and the payments could be small and spread out and add up.

For example, in addition to all the obvious things like taxing remittances, Mexico's refineries are old, breaking down, and inefficient. Mexico is shipping their heavy, tough-to-refine oil up to the US to cover their slack while they try to fix the problem, while we ship them back gas of higher quality than Pemex's. A little nip there in that deal, a fee here, a charge for sending them some of our refinery know-how and a long-term contract, and now you got it going on.

Just as Vox said, it's obvious that Trump has read his Sun Tzu. He always gives his enemies an escape if they choose to take it so that they don't fight like cornered rats in the crushing.

I have an idea for someone to manufacture a "Donald Trump A Day" box desk calendar for 2018 and on. On January 26, he did this, on January 27, he did that, through the year. Day-by-day, keeping his promise to make America great again.

According to Amazon, someone already created a 2018 Donald Trump Out of Office Calendar:

My preference is that we pay for the wall, mainly because I think pushing it on Mexico will generate more animosity than it is worth. I also think it only became an issue because the other side kept complaining about the cost.

The other side of it is that right now Mexico benefits more than we do in the relationship between our countries. If they have a hissy fit with Trump the side that gets burned will be Mexico. Given Trump's character he may want the confrontation. If so, well, so be it. Trust in the God Emperor to do the right thing.

It doesn't matter in the long run whether Mexico pays for the Wall. The load off our infrastructure will likely pay for it anyway. It matters because it tells people Trump keeps his word -- even the things he says that people assumed were campaign boasting. That puts his enemies further on their heels: "Holy crap, he meant all that stuff? What else did he promise off-hand? Did anyone keep track?"

That doesn't mean he won't eventually sit down with the Mexican president and work something out that looks good from both sides.

Mexico and Islam don't get along either so Mexico will submit to/cooperate with POTUS Trump forever, for the next 50 years, Mesico and the Trumps will become very close as Mexico CANNOT accept the La Raza issue is not only too late and but but now stupid. As irrational as it reads the terrorism will have to spread into Mexico if Mexico continues to not cooperate.

Johnny said: My preference is that we pay for the wall, mainly because I think pushing it on Mexico will generate more animosity than it is worth. I also think it only became an issue because the other side kept complaining about the cost.

Art of the deal- take an extreme position( wall COST) then negotiate from there, so that your CORE position ( wall CONSTRUCTION) is accepted and accomplished.

Already, we've gone from "the wall will NEVER happen" to Mexico will NEVER pay for it".Next will be "Mexico will only pay for PART of it" to

"Welcome to the El Norte Friendship Monument and National Park-Good Fences Make Good Neighbors."

For decades, Mexican nationals have been flowing across the border, taking the largess of the American workers - freely given to them by the powers that be - and it's time for that gravy train to stop dead.

Not only that, but they've brought high levels of crime, diseases and all kinds of other problems into the country while the rest of America had to suck it up.

Well, time's a changin and if they don't like it, it's just too damn bad.

I have to start reading Trump's tweets. I find it hilarious that he'd run a barrage of tweets telling Mexico that they're paying for the wall. I don't know how any of this is going to work out in the long run, but I will admit he's easily the most amusing president ever, IMHO. The thought of Mexico seeing a bunch of tweets basically saying "pay for this wall" is just funny. What a difference from the stodgy, ultra-serious, do-nothing cuck politicians.

I was a bit annoyed that Saudi Arabia wasn't on the list of countries where immigration would be restricted, but as a practical matter the State Department has to be cleansed of all its KSA moles before meaningful restriction could be pursued.

I'd guess most people, even his supporters, assumed that he'd stop tweeting after he took office, maybe turn it over to an Office of Social Media Engagement or something. The fact that he's kept tweeting, with the same attitude, was one way we knew well before the inauguration that he wasn't going to turn moderate.

@Desert Rat Amen, every bit of what you wrote I have been thinking myself. It's truly extraordinary. And amazing that there are still those on the right (and certain libertarians) who should see this themselves now, but are still stuck on the same old "Trump is a clown" and similar.

The cartels wouldn't be so powerful without the drug money pouring over the border. Not only would the wall reduce their power but force mexicans into a corner provided they have guns and they will fight like crazy against the cartels and maybe even the government.

Vincente Fox is, and has been, going off on Trump on Twitter. I think this will make Trump that much more determined to follow through. I don't see how Trump can give an inch now that Fox has made this so personal.

Yeah, he's the one who angrily said "We won't pay for that fucking wall" last year. Oh, yeah. Has-been Presidente, who robbed the Mexican people while in office, trying to gum on Trump's ankles like an aging Pekenese waddling out from under the sofa?

It's almost as if, when you put up the equivalent of a sign that says "lolcow here," with an arrow, people are going to troll the f4ck out of you, until you crack. Or something. The fact that LaBeouf's breakdown came in the form of attacking one of his own supporters is just the icing on the cake.

Mathias wrote:You forgot the Yeast. No booze without Yeast.Yeast is naturally occurring. Literally, just put your wort out to cool with no cover, and 95% of the time you'll get a yeast growing within 24 hours. That's where Belgian beers come from.

While the US economy is just starting a post-Obama bounce. The big globalist corporations may not be happy, and who knows what they'll do with the stock market, and we're still buried in debt. But small businesses are breathing a sigh of relief, knowing that they won't have an enemy in the White House for the first time in 8 years -- maybe 20-30 years. Some might even start to think it's safe to consider hiring and expansion again.

NAFTA is Trump's hole card for getting Mexico to pay for the wall. If Mexico wants favorable trade they will have to stop the illegal immigration and the only way they will be able to do that is by paying for the wall.

Ominous Cowherd wrote:The solution is not ``no wall,'' but ``no tyrants.'' We must keep the left from power. Building the wall will help with that.

This, if the left is allowed to mint these illegals into welfare voters its game over, walls, deportations, ending birthright citzenship, limit legal immigration. We will have the Senate and Congress after 2018 then 2 years of total control.

Mexico is close to being a failed state. If we start pushing them around what could easily happen is that the country will be so easy to push over and become so internally screwed up that it will turn into a blowback embarrassment for us. That is part of what happened to our occupation of the Philippines.

And you can say you don't give a rip all you want, but if the public at large in the US doesn't like it, that is called losing political support. Not a good thing.

Steven MqCueen wrote:While I support the President in his effort to get Mexico to pay for the wall, I hope he doesn't so antagonize the Mexican public as to create long-lasting hostility.

Yah, right. These are the same people that have a monument in Guadalajara to commemorate the glorious victory of the Mexican forces at the Alamo. They are still pissed about the invasion of US forces in the Mexican-American War.

The LA Times is running an article about what happened when they built a wall between El Paso and Juarez: "... protesters complained that building the barrier was like cutting off circulation to America's own limb. It was no surprise ... when the city on the Mexican side of the border fence began to wither and die. As Juarez descended into years of drug-fueled violence, El Paso thrived, ranking among the safest cities in the U.S."

The press doesn't even understand the significance of the facts they report, when they bother to report facts at all. Apparently it was not circulation to America's limb that was cut off by the wall.

But obviously we can't build the wall, because we wouldn't want the American side to thrive and become safe. That would be wrong.

If Mexico's economy is failing, it needs all the ambitious, hard-working, Christian, family-oriented, natural conservatives it can get. We have 10-20 million Mexicans by that description in the US, so the sooner we help them get home and save their nation, the better, right?

Cail Corishev wrote:If Mexico's economy is failing, it needs all the ambitious, hard-working, Christian, family-oriented, natural conservatives it can get. We have 10-20 million Mexicans by that description in the US, so the sooner we help them get home and save their nation, the better, right?

If Mexico goes over we should avoid the appearance that we have pushed them over. Or at the least avoid the appearance that we did it for reasons that are vengeful or mean spirited.

Lets see,

As (apparently) we are funding the wall up front, we can build the wall and put off demanding payment into the future. That is, we leave our options open.

Surely we can stop or greatly slow the influx of illegal aliens.(The wall along with enforcement.)

Surely we can deport Mexicans who have committed criminal acts.

Now still pretty politically safe,

Deport Mexicans that are living at our expense.

See to it that jobs go first to Americans and legal immigrants, effectively causing a lot of Mexicans to self deport for want of employment.

Call this the low hanging fruit policy. Do what is easy and obvious first and then progress depending on the future circumstance.

Also (I agree) it may will be that we can not come to terms with Mexico, and if we can't then the reasons for accommodation are minimal.

And if Trump wants to take an initial hard line, which is his tendency, I leave that to him. That is tactics rather than the anticipated outcome.

"Mexico is close to being a failed state. If we start pushing them around what could easily happen is that the country will be so easy to push over and become so internally screwed up that it will turn into a blowback embarrassment for us. That is part of what happened to our occupation of the Philippines."

Uhhh no. Bad comparison. The US is not occupying Mexico. What do you have against brown people? You sound racist. Can't brown people take care of their own societies without the white mans help?

Johnny wrote:If Mexico goes over we should avoid the appearance that we have pushed them over. Or at the least avoid the appearance that we did it for reasons that are vengeful or mean spirited.

Trump already covered that. Said it is a public safety, economic and sovereignty issue. Nothing mean-spirited about that. As far as APPEARING mean-spirited, one could help an old lady across the street and his enemies could make it APPEAR mean-spirited. Keeping up appearances is no way to make serious public policy.

Thinking about us getting in a fight with Mexico reminds me of a local incident. This guy went out with his drinking buddy who happened to be a midget. Later they got in an argument while imbibed and he pushed the midget. Anyway, the midget fell over and then went and died on him. (true story)

Now where do you go with this? Nobody wants to lose a fight with a midget. Who knows, maybe they are given to low blows. On the other side of it, you can't actually brag that you killed a midget with one blow. So, you know, your basic no win situation.

Mexico is a perennially corrupt Latin country that has considerable difficulty dealing with the narco gangs. Currently parts of the country are being policed with military units owing to the ineffective local police. There is a increase in violence in most areas and unsafe areas for foreigners are now commonplace, which surely must hurt the expat community and the tourist trade. Plus the government is not putting enough money into its nationalized oil industry, and thus losing revenue both from both lack of production and the now lower price for oil.

Surely we should keep that culture from spreading into the US, but there is not going to be anything heroic about any dispute we might have with them. You know, no proof of virility, etc..